Similarities Between Kyoto Protocol And Paris Agreement

The first difference is that the Kyoto Protocol created three mechanisms, but Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement creates only one mechanism. However, it is not yet known what kind of mechanism will be put in place and whether it is a centralized mechanism or a facilitation mechanism, from the bottom up. Nor is it clear whether this will be a broad mitigation mechanism in which a large number of mitigation approaches (. B, for example, related to projects, sectors, policies) will be possible or if they will be more limited. In addition, it is not yet known whether it will be a basic and credit mechanism or whether it will include a negotiating mechanism. [15] However, it seems reasonable to assume that Article 6.4 will not contain a centralized emissions trading system, as this would require the establishment of national international targets vis-à-vis States in order to enable trade and to set conditions for connection. [16] On the contrary, Emissions trading schemes are covered by Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the Paris Agreement, which provide for the parties to cooperate voluntarily in the implementation of their INDCs to strengthen the ambition of their mitigation measures, including the use of internationally transferred mitigation results (ITMMs) to nationally established contributions. Indeed, an EIT requires the adoption of national objectives at the international level, as well as a multitude of rules to allow trade and systems to bind, and these decisions are not compatible with the architecture of the Paris Agreement, since the emphasis is on INDCs. Therefore, while Article 6.2 is essentially the basis for the creation of the emissions trading system between countries and the interconnection of national emissions trading schemes, as ITMOs are the new currency, the only conditions under Article 6.2 are that systems promote sustainable development, environmental integrity and do not lead to double accounts. Nevertheless, in 1992, the UNFCCC distinguished between the schedule I parties with respect to some of the key climate change commitments, such as the obligation to take policies and actions in Article 4, paragraph 2, point a). More importantly, the obligations of the agreement were primarily based on the inclusion of countries in Schedule I (a list of countries that at the time included the OECD and other countries in transition to a market economy) or Schedule II (a subset of Schedule I, including oecd countries at the time). However, other categories of countries are mentioned. For example, it lists a wide range of categories of developing countries related to the effects of climate change and the effects of implementing response measures, including small island countries, countries with fragile ecosystems, fossil fuel countries, landlocked countries, etc.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.